Are There Any Contradictions In The Bible?

Major said:
Peter, speaking about the Old testament said in 2 Peter 1:20-21 ........
"...No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Tim. 3:16..........
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Here Paul asserts that all Scripture–meaning the entire Bible–is God-breathed (i.e., breathed out as when speaking; exhaled/expired).

There are several methods of explaining the authenticity of the Biuble but I believe the " The Verbal Plenary Theory" is the right one.​

The orthodox and IMPO, the correct view of the inspiration of the Bible is called the Verbal Plenary Theory. This view explains that the Spirit of God guided men in the choice of the words used in the original writings; and that the entire Bible is inspired in this way. According to the verses cited above, this theory is what the Bible teaches about its inspiration. This inspiration refers to the original manuscripts.

Although there is a human element in the writings–such as the writers' personal characteristics, writing style, vocabulary, expressed feelings, opinions, prayers, and even fears–inspiration contends that God still directed the authors so that all the words that were used were equally inspired of God, and were the ones God intended for us to have in order to know Him and His plan of salvation.
Click to expand...
That view was the view held by those such as Luther and Calvin and others of the past, only got watered down to a limited inspiration view when critical scholars in Germany and Europe tried to apply evolution to the Bible, hence 4 authors of Genesis, 3 Isaiah etc!
 
DNB7 said:
Hi Major, thank you for offering your insights, in general, I do agree with them all.
But, excuse me if my assumptions are incorrect, I hope that I didn't lead anyone to believe that I am asserting that there are contradictions or historical fallacies in the Bible? I'm getting the impression that those who have responded to me, including yourself, regard my views as skepticism? They weren't, they were rhetorical - simply pointing out areas of discrepancy, but justifying them by the ancient authors thematic or theological literary approach, not one of emphasizing the logistics of the events, or every detail of the characters and plot.
I thought that I made my position clear in my initial posts, that the majority of perceived conflicts can be reconciled with further research and comprehension of the respective author's approach and intent, of each Gospel.
Click to expand...
DNB7 said:
Hi Major, the verses that you pointed out are compelling to support your view, but, in my opinion, they relate mostly to prophetical announcements (either foretelling or forthtelling), or areas of facts that the alleged author couldn't possibly know (Creation, Garden of Eden, events before the flood, people's thoughts, etc...). I say alleged authors because we do not know with exact certitude who any of the authors were, in either Testament. Tradition is the only consensus on the issue. How could Samuel have written 2 Samuel, when he died in 1 Samuel? Did Moses write of his death after the fact, or did he claim that he was 'the most humble man on earth'? If God superintended every single word written in Scripture, then it would be blasphemy to attempt to translate the Bible into another language - for formal equivalence is impossible in its entirety, and almost incomprehensible for a very large part of the renderings. Not to mention the errors that have infiltrated Scripture by scribal mistakes - what a burden on a copyist to bear the responsibility of bastardizing God's 'impeccable' Word due to fatigue, bad eyesight, worn-out parchment, nomina-sacra, etc . Would anyone dare take on such a daunting responsibility, and yet, where would we be without the efforts of the scriptoriums and copyists? Finally, such a doctrine as Verbal Plenary Theory, resembles much too much the sentiments of the KJVO, or even the Koran: where only one rendering, in one particular language, can only be classified as 'The Word of God'.
Click to expand...

Hello DNB7;

You're doing fine, brother, and thank you for being a blessing to your new friends at Christian Forum Site.

Your manner in your posts are respectful, polite with a flavor of objectivity and what more can I personally ask for in a good fellowship discussion about Christ?

For example, when I author a thread or post to a topic, the members who may respond here are seasoned disciples but they will respond back.
I trust them when I express my opinion, my interpretation may help them, they will agree or disagree and question me, and I also have stood corrected.

Just keep writing as the spirit prompts you, DNB7, and express what the Scriptures are saying to you whether in systematic or Biblical theology, and let's all see where the Lord leads and teaches each one of us.

God bless you, brother and your family.
 
DNB7 said:
Hi Major, the verses that you pointed out are compelling to support your view, but, in my opinion, they relate mostly to prophetical announcements (either foretelling or forthtelling), or areas of facts that the alleged author couldn't possibly know (Creation, Garden of Eden, events before the flood, people's thoughts, etc...).
I say alleged authors because we do not know with exact certitude who any of the authors were, in either Testament. Tradition is the only consensus on the issue. How could Samuel have written 2 Samuel, when he died in 1 Samuel? Did Moses write of his death after the fact, or did he claim that he was 'the most humble man on earth'?
Not to mention the errors that have infiltrated Scripture by scribal mistakes - what a burden on a copyist to bear the responsibility of bastardizing God's 'impeccable' Word due to fatigue, bad eyesight, worn-out parchment, nomina-sacra, etc . Would anyone dare take on such a daunting responsibility, and yet, where would we be without the efforts of the scriptoriums and copyists?

Finally, such a doctrine as Verbal Plenary Theory, resembles much too much the sentiments of the KJVO, or even the Koran: where only one rendering, in one particular language, can only be classified as 'The Word of God'.
Click to expand...

I can not agree with your thesis.

To say that the authors of the Scriptures are "Alleged" is not the case. And may I say that right there at the foundation of your post is flawed so the rest will be also.

1 Corthians 1:1........"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,"

Romans 1:1...............“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” .

James 1:1 .................James, a servant of God and of the LORD Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

Rev. 1:1........................"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

What man who wrote 2 Samuel is not important. "ALL Scripture is inspired BY GOD."

Colossians 1:16.....
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So we can correctly say that Biblically, 2 Samuel was written by the Lord Jesus Christ as were all the other books! So then the point is mute!
 
DNB7 said:
Hi Major, thank you for offering your insights, in general, I do agree with them all.
But, excuse me if my assumptions are incorrect, I hope that I didn't lead anyone to believe that I am asserting that there are contradictions or historical fallacies in the Bible? I'm getting the impression that those who have responded to me, including yourself, regard my views as skepticism? They weren't, they were rhetorical - simply pointing out areas of discrepancy, but justifying them by the ancient authors thematic or theological literary approach, not one of emphasizing the logistics of the events, or every detail of the characters and plot.

I thought that I made my position clear in my initial posts, that the majority of perceived conflicts can be reconciled with further research and comprehension of the respective author's approach and intent, of each Gospel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post.

To be blunt......Yes, your post did come across as being skeptical. However, I enjoy such comments and have made a living at giving the answers.
 
DNB7 said:
Hi Major, the verses that you pointed out are compelling to support your view, but, in my opinion, they relate mostly to prophetical announcements (either foretelling or forthtelling), or areas of facts that the alleged author couldn't possibly know (Creation, Garden of Eden, events before the flood, people's thoughts, etc...).
I say alleged authors because we do not know with exact certitude who any of the authors were, in either Testament. Tradition is the only consensus on the issue. How could Samuel have written 2 Samuel, when he died in 1 Samuel? Did Moses write of his death after the fact, or did he claim that he was 'the most humble man on earth'?

If God superintended every single word written in Scripture, then it would be blasphemy to attempt to translate the Bible into another language - for formal equivalence is impossible in its entirety, and almost incomprehensible for a very large part of the renderings. Not to mention the errors that have infiltrated Scripture by scribal mistakes - what a burden on a copyist to bear the responsibility of bastardizing God's 'impeccable' Word due to fatigue, bad eyesight, worn-out parchment, nomina-sacra, etc . Would anyone dare take on such a daunting responsibility, and yet, where would we be without the efforts of the scriptoriums and copyists?

Finally, such a doctrine as Verbal Plenary Theory, resembles much too much the sentiments of the KJVO, or even the Koran: where only one rendering, in one particular language, can only be classified as 'The Word of God'.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit , God Himself. moved upon those writers of the originals in a unique fashion, as all that they penned down were indeed free from anu and all errors and mistakes!
 
Major said:
Thanks for your post.

To be blunt......Yes, your post did come across as being skeptical. However, I enjoy such comments and have made a living at giving the answers.
Click to expand...
IF oner can accept that truth that God became a Man, then believing in full inspiration of scripture should be "childs play"
 
Major said:
I can not agree with your thesis.

To say that the authors of the Scriptures are "Alleged" is not the case. And may I say that right there at the foundation of your post is flawed so the rest will be also.

1 Corthians 1:1........"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,"

Romans 1:1...............“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” .

James 1:1 .................James, a servant of God and of the LORD Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

Rev. 1:1........................"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

What man who wrote 2 Samuel is not important. "ALL Scripture is inspired BY GOD."

Colossians 1:16.....
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

So we can correctly say that Biblically, 2 Samuel was written by the Lord Jesus Christ as were all the other books! So then the point is mute!
Click to expand...
There never was any known dispute to the 4 Gospel writers, nor Luke, nor paul, so majority of the books are well attested to by authorship! Hebrews is unknown, but was received by early church as being fully inspired!
 
DNB7 said:
But, that's clearly not true as far as Luke's writings are concerned. He explicitly stated that he took the research upon himself to discover what occurred during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Church, and that it required investigation by speaking to other witnesses. That is, the facts were not imparted to him by God, as you are attempting to declare.
Click to expand...
Not only did Luke write the Gospel that bears his name, but he also was privileged and inspired by God to write the book of Acts.

Luke was a Gentile, and is an example of an open-minded man, which was unusual for an educated Gentile in his day, but he is a lesson for all who are so focused on their own personal agendas and positions that they are firmly glued in their comfort zone. Luke probably had social status in his community as a physician, but when confronted with truth, he not only recognized it, but he realized that nothing is more important than pursuing it, no matter what the consequences. Luke recognized that Jesus is truth, and his life was forever changed.
 
DNB7 said:
Yes, sorry, there are explicit statements of authorship in some cases, even in the Old Testament as far as the Psalms are concerned. But, even these are not without dispute: some of the epistles of Paul, by some scholars esteem, are considered pseudepigraphical. So, there is still that controversy or uncertainty.

To be honest, though, I personally don't care - if God endowed certain men with wisdom and understanding, to the point that their instructions and assertions were uncontested truth and authoritative, I care very little if they were either prominent Biblical characters, or had the word of God dictated to them letter by letter. The wisdom speaks for itself that, in one form or another, they are writing under the auspices of God, whether we know their names or not.

I firmly believe that the letter to the Hebrews is beyond anyone's deciphering as to whom the author was. I can't imagine who wrote Ruth or Esther, and even the authorship of Kings and Chronicles eludes me as it covers a period of about 450 years?

Yes, some statements made in the Bible cannot be known without divine intervention, but not all, and I believe that God allowed somewhat of a motley crew to be part of the establishment and transmission (In various forms and mediums) of His divine will.
Click to expand...
Do you hold that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures to be written?
 
DNB7 said:
But, that's clearly not true as far as Luke's writings are concerned. He explicitly stated that he took the research upon himself to discover what occurred during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Church, and that it required investigation by speaking to other witnesses. That is, the facts were not imparted to him by God, as you are attempting to declare.
Click to expand...
The authors of each canonized scripture book used their own vocabulary and phrasing as they wrote it down, Luke did indeed do the work of an historian to produce his Gospel, but the end book was inspired by the Holy Spirit free of all errors and mistakes!
 
Major said:
Not only did Luke write the Gospel that bears his name, but he also was privileged and inspired by God to write the book of Acts.

Luke was a Gentile, and is an example of an open-minded man, which was unusual for an educated Gentile in his day, but he is a lesson for all who are so focused on their own personal agendas and positions that they are firmly glued in their comfort zone. Luke probably had social status in his community as a physician, but when confronted with truth, he not only recognized it, but he realized that nothing is more important than pursuing it, no matter what the consequences. Luke recognized that Jesus is truth, and his life was forever changed.
Click to expand...
According to tradition, he also gave his life for the sake and cause of Jesus, as he was said to have been dragged behind horses until dead!
 
Major said:
Not only did Luke write the Gospel that bears his name, but he also was privileged and inspired by God to write the book of Acts.

Luke was a Gentile, and is an example of an open-minded man, which was unusual for an educated Gentile in his day, but he is a lesson for all who are so focused on their own personal agendas and positions that they are firmly glued in their comfort zone. Luke probably had social status in his community as a physician, but when confronted with truth, he not only recognized it, but he realized that nothing is more important than pursuing it, no matter what the consequences. Luke recognized that Jesus is truth, and his life was forever changed.
Click to expand...
Think that out friend here is really denying full inspiration of the scriptures!
 
DNB7 said:
Yes, sorry, there are explicit statements of authorship in some cases, even in the Old Testament as far as the Psalms are concerned. But, even these are not without dispute: some of the epistles of Paul, by some scholars esteem, are considered pseudepigraphical. So, there is still that controversy or uncertainty.

To be honest, though, I personally don't care - if God endowed certain men with wisdom and understanding, to the point that their instructions and assertions were uncontested truth and authoritative, I care very little if they were either prominent Biblical characters, or had the word of God dictated to them letter by letter. The wisdom speaks for itself that, in one form or another, they are writing under the auspices of God, whether we know their names or not.

I firmly believe that the letter to the Hebrews is beyond anyone's deciphering as to whom the author was. I can't imagine who wrote Ruth or Esther, and even the authorship of Kings and Chronicles eludes me as it covers a period of about 450 years?

Yes, some statements made in the Bible cannot be known without divine intervention, but not all, and I believe that God allowed somewhat of a motley crew to be part of the establishment and transmission (In various forms and mediums) of His divine will.
Click to expand...

Just all are clear........"Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") = falsely attributed works.

Now I must say at this point, your argument does in fact spring from Skepticism. Of the 13 productions of Paul, 7 are undisputed. Of the 6 left
Skeptics of the disputed letters hold several reasons for their disbelief.

First, they claim that the history presented in the disputed letters do not match what one finds in the book of Acts.

Second, the vocabulary, it is argued, is much different in the disputed letters than in the undisputed letters of Paul.

Third, skeptics argue that the development of church structure is more advanced in the disputed letters than the undisputed letters; doctrinal issues seem to point towards a later date (including some apparent allusions to Gnosticism); and the stylistic differences between the undisputed and disputed letters all illustrate their cause for dismissing Paul as the author of the disputed texts.

Now whether Paul personally penned an epistle or had someone write it down for is not the issue! The most important fact to take notice of is i that all thirteen letters received approval from those closest to Paul when they were presented and read at those churches!
If the letters had not actually been written or dictated by him, then those men OF THAT DAY would have rejected them then and we would not be having this discussion today.

Again, just to make sure we are all on the same page lets consider the word......"Amanuensis" which means .....
a literary or artistic assistant, in particular one who takes dictation or copies manuscripts.


Many years ago when I first learned the scribal practices of the amanuensis, it was realized the stylistic differences in the different Pauline epistles were easily resolved. One may see stylistic differences even among the undisputed letters of Paul for the same reason. An amanuensis was a scribe who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. The amanuensis would read back the letter to the author to ensure the message was as the orator desired. Scholars have noted that amanuenses were often allowed some liberty in the structure of their writing so long as the message was preserved.

As for the Book of Hebrews author. I do not know and I do not care. Some say Paul, some say Luke and some say Barnabus. I say the Lord Jesus Christ!
 
DNB7 said:
But, that's clearly not true as far as Luke's writings are concerned. He explicitly stated that he took the research upon himself to discover what occurred during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Church, and that it required investigation by speaking to other witnesses. That is, the facts were not imparted to him by God, as you are attempting to declare.
Click to expand...

As for the book of Ruth.........The Jewish Talmud attributed the authorship of both Judges and Ruth to Samuel (b. B. Bat. 14b – 15a).
 
Major said:
Just all are clear........"Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") = falsely attributed works.

Now I must say at this point, your argument does in fact spring from Skepticism. Of the 13 productions of Paul, 7 are undisputed. Of the 6 left
Skeptics of the disputed letters hold several reasons for their disbelief.

First, they claim that the history presented in the disputed letters do not match what one finds in the book of Acts.

Second, the vocabulary, it is argued, is much different in the disputed letters than in the undisputed letters of Paul.

Third, skeptics argue that the development of church structure is more advanced in the disputed letters than the undisputed letters; doctrinal issues seem to point towards a later date (including some apparent allusions to Gnosticism); and the stylistic differences between the undisputed and disputed letters all illustrate their cause for dismissing Paul as the author of the disputed texts.

Now whether Paul personally penned an epistle or had someone write it down for is not the issue! The most important fact to take notice of is i that all thirteen letters received approval from those closest to Paul when they were presented and read at those churches!
If the letters had not actually been written or dictated by him, then those men OF THAT DAY would have rejected them then and we would not be having this discussion today.

Again, just to make sure we are all on the same page lets consider the word......"Amanuensis" which means .....
a literary or artistic assistant, in particular one who takes dictation or copies manuscripts.


Many years ago when I first learned the scribal practices of the amanuensis, it was realized the stylistic differences in the different Pauline epistles were easily resolved. One may see stylistic differences even among the undisputed letters of Paul for the same reason. An amanuensis was a scribe who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. The amanuensis would read back the letter to the author to ensure the message was as the orator desired. Scholars have noted that amanuenses were often allowed some liberty in the structure of their writing so long as the message was preserved.

As for the Book of Hebrews author. I do not know and I do not care. Some say Paul, some say Luke and some say Barnabus. I say the Lord Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...
Regardless if it was the Apostle or his scribe, the finished work was still inspired by the Holy Spirit!
 
DNB7 said:
We can say that about about any man's efforts to do what pleases God. I don't believe that you have Scripture that explicitly states that any New Testament author wrote being moved by the Holy Spirit outside of in the generic sense. Peter states that Paul was given wisdom from God of which he put such sublime sentiments to pen. But, again, this can be said about many of the Christians in that period, or any era - Christians are endowed with wisdom in general. But, I will not assert that everything that they write or say, is under the auspices or guidance of God
Click to expand...
Actually, Peter called Paul's writings scripture...

(2Pe 3:15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(2Pe 3:16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul was not moved by the Holy Spirit when he wrote?...

(Gal 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

He is taking an authority higher than the angels, which could only be by the Holy Spirit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top